If the assault weapon ban was still in place....

[cynatnite]

there wouldn't have been this level of devastation. Before 2004, it was illegal to manufacture or sell magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Loughner's held 31 rounds. Reports are that he fired 15 to 20 rounds. If the ban was still in place he would have had to reload which would have given time for him to be stopped.

So, the gun laws are so weak that someone who had been deemed unworthy for the military, kicked out of college and requires mental testing in order to return, and has a drug conviction can walk in and buy a semi-automatic weapon with a magazine that carries 31 rounds of ammunition.

There is a dead 9-year-old little girl who might be alive today had that ban been kept in place.

[msongs]

1. its not guns that kill people, its gun owners nt

[wtmusic]

4. No, it's the parents who gave birth to the gun owners.

Basically, the problem is anything or anyone *but* easy access to the deadliest handguns ever made.

[texshelters]

25. I would like to see someone kill more than one person with a knife...

guns are tools only made to kill.

Your lame retort of the same old line doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[tammywammy]

35. 8 people stabbed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

[texshelters]

151. Yes there are always exceptions to the rule

but that doesn't make knives more dangerous than guns. You need more skill and physical ability to kill with a knife.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Euromutt]

191. It answered your challenge

You said "I would like to see someone kill more than one person with a knife..."
There's no shortage of examples of that happening in the past decade alone. The Osaka school massacre in June 2001 (8 dead), the Akihabara massacre in June 2008 (7 dead), Yang Jia's attack on a police station in the Zhabei district of Shanghai in July 2008 (6 dead, all policemen), the Nonhyeon-dong massacre in Seoul in October 2008 (6 dead), the Dendermonde nursery attack in January 2009 (3 dead), the Nanping school massacre in March 2010 (8 dead), the Hanzhong kindergarten attack in May of 2010 (9 dead), and there are undoubtedly more I'm not aware of.

To focus on the fact that a gun is more dangerous than a knife is to miss the point. The point is that an individual intent on killing as many people as he can, when attacking a crowd of people who are all unsuspecting, unprepared and unarmed, can readily inflict as much damage as an attacker wielding a gun. Especially if he plows into the crowd with a motor vehicle first (as in the Akihabara massacre).

[TheWraith]

37. Actually, multiple people are routinely killed with knives.

Google has 156,000 results for "multiple murder with a knife."

[texshelters]

152. Did you read them and find out that there aren't the same

knifing. Yes, there are examples, but really, is a knife more dangerous than a gun? Do you really think that's true?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[SteveM]

156. Do machetes count? I hear they're popular in some African countries.

[X_Digger]

39. 7 are dead, 10 are injured in stabbing spree

17 stabbed in three minutes..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8jAv_BXz4k

[caseymoz]

136. Would you bring a knife to a gunfight?

So, which is better at killing people? You see, you know which is better. So do criminals and so do people who carry guns. People might say he could use a knife, yes, and you could use a rock to drive a nail, but is it better than a claw hammer?

So, how often does a knife rampage this deadly really happen? Or is the media just suppression all the knife rampages and reporting all these school and workplace shootings instead. You act like knives would always be this effective if people would chose them, but in all truth, in the real world, gun people don't act like they think knives are just as good at defending or killing, and neither do soldiers or criminals. We arm our soldiers with rifles, not swords.

[X_Digger]

145. No, I carry the most effective tool for defending myself.

But the myth that absent guns there would be no mass killings falls flat on its face when compared to reality.

China has about 150 dead people (aa a best guess- we know that not all these events are reported immediately) who would take issue with this myth.

[Euromutt]

192. Wrong question

A better question would be "would you rather bring a knife or a gun to a fistfight?" but even that isn't quite apposite because we're not talking about anything that could reasonably be called a "fight." We're talking about how much damage can be done by one individual intent upon inflicting as much damage as he can upon a group of unsuspecting, unprepared and unarmed victims (in one word, a slaughter). The historical evidence indicates that, for that particular purpose, whether one uses a blade or a firearm is pretty much a question of six of one, half a dozen of the other.

So, how often does a knife rampage this deadly really happen?

Going by the last few years, several times a year. But they tend to happen overseas (particularly China, Japan and Korea), and Americans don't tend to be involved, so the mainstream American news media don't pay a lot of attention to such incidents.

We arm our soldiers with rifles, not swords.

Well sure, but that's because we know the other side is carrying rifles as well. If the other side showed up carrying wooden clubs inset with sharpened obsidian and wearing padded cloth armor (like, say, the Aztecs), swords and metal armor would work just fine. Ask the Spanish.

[lawodevolution]

104. 500 killed by knives in a mass violence event in nigeria

"I would like to see someone kill more than one person with a knife..."

This is a lot more than virginia tech and done with knives (machetes). Ignorance is the most important ally of gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/world/africa/09nigeria.html

[texshelters]

148. Were they killed in secondes by one person?

yes, knives kill, but you know it's not the same. Your answer is disingenuous.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[SteveM]

157. So speed-killings are what you are worried about? I thought it was the number.

[hendo]

187. tex is just attempting to reframe the discussion rather than admitting he is wrong. NT

[Euromutt]

193. Who cares how many seconds it takes?

There's only one measure of time that matters in this kind of incident, which is "before the killer could be overpowered."
Whether that period is measured in seconds, minutes, hours or more is significantly less important than how many people the assailant managed to kill (and wound) during that period. And the historical evidence indicates that a rampage killer falling upon a crowd of unsuspecting and unarmed victims can readily inflict as much damage with blades as he can with a firearm. The Akihabara massacre in Tokyo, less than three years ago, resulted in 7 dead and 10 wounded, a very comparable casualty count to Saturday's events in Tucson.

[lawodevolution]

105. it seems only the largest mass knifings in china are reported, one had 28 victims

28 victims
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html

someone made a wiki page on the subject of mass knifings in china
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks

[guardian]

111. MAN WITH SWORD KILLS 2 AND WOUNDS 9

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/08/nyregion/man-with-sword-kills-2-and-wounds-9-on-si-ferry.html?pagewanted=2

A homeless Cuban refugee, chanting and apparently deranged, went on a rampage with a sword aboard a Staten Island ferryboat yesterday and killed two people and wounded nine others before being subdued by a retired police officer at gunpoint.

¶ Wielding a two-foot ornamental blade apparently purchased in Times Square, the assailant pursued, hacked and stabbed victims on two decks of the rumbling, ferry.

¶ As passengers shrieked and fled in pandemonium that went on for nearly five minutes, the assailant was stabbing another victim on the top deck when the 55-year-old retired officer Edward del Pino, who lives on Staten Island and carries a gun for a part-time job as a security guard in Manhattan, abruptly confronted him.

¶ ''Drop it!'' Mr. del Pino shouted, and fired a warning shot. He then ordered the disarmed man to lie on a bench, pointed his chrome-plated .38-caliber revolver directly at the assailant's face and warned: ''You move and you're dead!''

¶ The suspect - who was seized by the police as the boat drew into St. George Terminal and ambulances rushed victims to two Staten Island hospitals -was identified as Juan J. Gonzalez, 43 years old, a homeless man who came to the United States in the 1977 boatlift of refugees from Mariel, Cuba, and has sometimes stayed at shelters in New York City.

¶ The slain passengers, both stabbed on the upper of the ferry's three decks...Both died of deep stab wounds. According to accounts by witnesses and the police, the assailant stabbed four people on the saloon, or middle, deck, and then went to the promenade, or upper, deck, where he killed Mr. Walker and Mrs. Cammaroto and wounded five others

[Straw Man]

130. "...more than one person with a knife..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

[caseymoz]

135. If guns don't kill, what are they made to do?

I mean, do you agree that a hammer drives nails, or would you say, "A hammer doesn't drive nails, people drive nails?"

If guns don't kill people or animals, they're the only tools we use that have absolutely no use.

[GreenStormCloud]

140. Killing isn't always evil. N/T

[caseymoz]

182. Without a doubt, but guns still kill people. nt

[Callisto32]

144. Allow me to defeat your argument...

...using your own analogy.

If you are going to argue from analogy, make sure your analogy is correct. What you are suggesting is that hammer is to nail as firearm is to murder victim. This is not the same relationship. Hammer is to nail as firearm is to bullet. Both are tools used to drive another piece of matter. They are even more alike than you seem to realize in that both hammers and firearms require human intervention to perform their intended task.

The relationship you are looking for is hammer is to joined joined as firearm is to shot item. Note that in both cases, the item did not create the result, but was used by a person to achieve that result.

The use of a firearm is "drive a piece of matter so as to place a hole into or impact another piece of matter." That happens to be a good way to solve that "animals need killing, sometimes" problem. Why so against effective solutions to real problems?

[texshelters]

153. Hammers have other uses

guns are primarily for killing. So the analogy holds unless you ignore the reality of guns.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[X_Digger]

154. Feel free to chime in here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

[SteveM]

159. So, what is your point about the purpose? Please explain. nt

[Callisto32]

180. No, hammers have one use.

Carrying energy.

Bullets do the same thing.

See above post about why the analogy was incorrect.

[hendo]

188. Hammer murders anyone?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/unsolved/hammer_murders/index.html

[caseymoz]

183. And you're substantially wrong.

I used some shorthand in my analogy saying that a hammer drives nails the way a gun kills people. But I'm a little stunned that you did not correct it to hammer drives nails into boards the way a gun fires bullets into people, instead of what you did. And the relationship would be hammer x nails x boards and gun x bullets x bodies. It tempts me to ask you for your troll ID.

In both, however you do have to have the person: person x hammer x nail x boards and person x gun x bullets x bodies. And then at the end, you have a have a further goal. For the hammer it would be a built house maybe, and for the gun it would be a dead or wounded person or several.

We have those relationships with all hand tools, all with a person at one end and the product or result at the other. You've given a bit of a silly, irrelevant exercise. Because the point is, we're never urged to avoid the stated use of a tool the way gun advocates urge us to avoid mentioning the use of a gun. And that is my point in stating this. I'm didn't state here I was against "effective solutions," though that's Orwellian term for perhaps murdering people. It's hard to tell, which is why the term is effective.

What I'm against is bullshit, people lying to themselves and each other. And saying guns don't kill people is the gold currency of bullshit.

[Callisto32]

209. Both items pass energy.

The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails.

The purpose of a gun is to drive bullets.

You didn't use shorthand. You said guns put bullets into people. Bull. If someone puts a nail into a board, they wouldn't say the hammer put the nail into the board, they USED the hammer to put the nail into the board. But we will be happy to say "guns kill." BS. Guns drive bullets, people direct those bullets, same as people direct nails.

Both hammers and guns can be used, by people, to do both positive and negative things. Will you tell me that using a hammer to kill a person is less wrong because the hammer was not "designed to kill." No, of course not. Why? Because it is the action, and not the item that actually matters when making moral determinations.

You claim that guns are designed to kill, and so are somehow bad, but neglect to mention that sometimes killing is a positive, or at least necessary, thing. Should we ignore all the good that firearms do, like putting food on the table for poor people in Appalachia? Would we claim that using that gun to kill a whitetail is bad because the gun was designed to kill? No.

Again, your analogy is wrong, because it links an item to a moral determination, which is not logically valid. The gun is like any other tool, it does work. To what end that work is directed relates to the person doing it, not to the tool used.

Sorry, your analogy begs a question, and is incorrect. You presume that "guns are bad because they are designed to kill" but fail to back that up (because it can't be backed up because an inanimate object cannot be bad), and then use that premise to come to your conclusion.

[SteveM]

158. Beyond target practice, most are designed to kill. So, what is your point? nt

[caseymoz]

185. So, would you then say, guns don't kill people, people kill people?

And if you do, how do make sense of it?

My point: guns kill people, and don't bullshit about it. I don't care if you accept that and carry a gun, I just want gun proponents to stop the propaganda and bullshit.

[RSillsbee]

194. My gun has never killed anyone. NT

[caseymoz]

200. That's not the question, and you know it.

And you don't have to evade and squirm like that, especially when you've never had to kill anyone with a gun, and it's more than 99 percent likely that you will ever find it necessary. I'm not going where you think I'm going here. You've never needed a gun's particular function, and so, you've never used it for that. Just like a hammer that you never use, that you're kid instead uses to set off caps or kill bugs.

However, we ought to be able to refer to a tool's function truthfully. Function: Hammer drives nails into boards. Gun fires bullets into animals (people). The result of one is perhaps a cabinet. The result of the other a corpse.

[RSillsbee]

202. You've never had to kill anyone with a gun,

I've killed people ( in combat) w/ artillery is that some how different?

Function: Hammer drives nails into boards. Gun fires bullets into animals (people). The result of one is perhaps a cabinet. The result of the other a corpse.

My gun drives bullets into paper targets the result is litter. I have also used my gun to put down a deer that was hit by a car I'd call that an absolute act of mercy

[YllwFvr]

205. The "function" of my guns

Is to make holes in paper very far away

[YllwFvr]

204. Im still trying to get this argument

Guns are made to kill people...

I own about a dozen, and ive likely fired tens of thousands of rounds. Ive never even injured someone. Thinking on it, of all the armed people I know, some of whom have had to defend themselves with guns, weve never injured anyone with our guns and fire hundreds of thousands of rounds. Does that mean we are poorly carrying out the purpose of these weapons?

I may be going about this gun ownership thing all wrong I guess. None of my guns have killed anyone :(


Where is that sarcasm .gif?

[wtmusic]

2. The Second Amendment is very clear that 10 rounds aren't enough nt

[caseymoz]

137. Not when you have Indians to kill. nt

[SteveM]

161. Indians were well-armed with guns, from colonial times up. nt

[SteveM]

160. Sure sign of complete defeat: making stuff up. nt

[Statistical]

3. I bought a half dozen >10 rnd magazines durring the "scary black rifle" ban.

They weren't particularly hard to find. Most gunshops carried them. The ban didn't stop selling standard capacity magazines it simply prohibited manufacturing new ones. There were millions of existing magazines and many companies ran the presses 24/7 prior to the ban to stockpile millions more.

[wtmusic]

5. This guy wouldn't have had access to one, would he?

Kinda kills that argument. :eyes:

[petronius]

8. Why wouldn't he have? They were always available... (nt)

[Statistical]

9. Why wouldn't he. They were available in every gunshop in america.

It didn't take a secret handshake. The belief that they were even slightly hard to come by is a fallacy. Anyone capable of buying a firearm could buy an extended capacity mag before, during, and after the ban.

[wtmusic]

21. Then the law wasn't enforced

An enforced law would have saved several lives yesterday. But don't let that get in the way of your hobby. :eyes:

[Codeine]

34. It was legal to sell existing stocks. nt

[wtmusic]

38. They would have been gone by now. nt

[Statistical]

44. Not likely. Gunshops even during the ban routinely bought and sold used full cap mags.

That trend would have continued today. With reasonable care and replacing the spring every couple years a magazine can last decades.

[wtmusic]

51. Then they should have been banned completely.

What "would" have happened then?

[TheWraith]

57. Probably the same thing as when cocaine and pot were banned completely.

That they'd be widely available via criminal enterprise.

[texshelters]

87. You are comparing drugs to guns and that doesn't work

plus, I never said ban all guns. And unless you are a gun lunatic, you don't get addicted to guns like you do drugs.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[wtmusic]

90. In certain ways, the comparison is apt.

Many around here react to the thought of having their gun fetish controlled as a heroin addict reacts to someone taking away his fix.

Peace backatcha.

[texshelters]

106. But that is from those that want a ban

not the users. Most gun users are responsible and not addicts.

Drug users are not.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[SteveM]

162. Do you support continued drug prohibition?

"Most gun users are responsible and not addicts. Drug users are not." Explain this rather sweeping statement.

[TheWraith]

128. On the contrary, it's pretty simple.

Things for which there is a demand, when they are banned, create a black market. Period. If people want 20 round magazines, and they're banned, there WILL be people making them in their garage, just like there's people cooking meth, and like there was people during Prohibition making booze.

[RSillsbee]

64. What "would" have happened then?

The same thing that happened when they banned marijuana completely.

If they ban guns completely tomorrow I could get the prints for an AK off the Internet, walk into almost any machine shop in the country and make one in about a week. Once I made one and had the process down I could crank them out en masse.

What are you going to do, kill every machinist in the country?

http://www.weaponryonline.com/Downloads-req-viewdownload-cid-4-orderby-ratingA.html
One of 361,000 hits i got off of google in 3.4 seconds

[benEzra]

81. The 1994 elections times ten. (n/t)

[wtmusic]

91. ..

:cry:

Let's give it a try.

[benEzra]

101. No, I'll keep mine, thanks. If I wanted pre-1870's magazine capacity, I'd buy a Spencer.

Personally, I have legal and moral objections to outlawing hundreds of millions of lawfully owned magazines, and the utter futility of that would obvious if you think about it. The day a ban looks like it has a serious chance of passing Congress, you'll just start another "stock up while you can" run on magazines anyway.

I'd also like to see you justify a ban on rifle magazines when rifles are the least misused of all firearms. Not that this fact probably matters to those pushing new bans.

[oneshooter]

123. Or a Henry. n/t

[benEzra]

141. Some of the Henrys exceeded the Brady's cherished 10-round max cap

by 5 rounds or so. I believe some of the Henrys also were set up for speedloaders, unless I'm confusing them with Spencers.

The Evans Repeating Rifle of 1873-ish could be had with 28- to 34-round helical magazines (like a Calico); the carbine version was 28 rounds and the rifle version was 34, as I recall.

[RSillsbee]

122. Note I specified a week to make an AK

Magazines I could do in a day. Especially since you can use the bodies of the low cap mag and just change out the insides.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. The AWB didn't do that... which is what the OP was about.

Now had they COMPLETELY banned something... wouldn't the government have had to offer just compensation for articles seized which were once 100% legal to own?

[wtmusic]

93. Seems like they should offer compensation, yes. nt

[Ter]

133. Revolution

And 350 Republicans in the House, along with 69 in the Senate, and President McCain.

[lawodevolution]

113. "They would have been gone by now. nt"

they'd be all gone by now?

China has a gun ban, yet china remains the nation with the 3rd most civilian firearms according to 2007 small arms survey.

Cocaine is illegal in the USA, yet it is everywhere.

Part of the process of becoming an adult is leaving behind the naive idealism of adolescence and entering the real world.

[hendo]

189. Grasping at straws again, eh? NT

[Statistical]

40. The law was enforced. It didn't make sales of full capacity magazines illegal.

It simply prohibited the manufacture of full capacity magazines after the cutoff date. Knowing the huge value in restricted items companies specifically ramped up production legally prior to the bills enactment. The markup on full capacity magazines was 200%-300% of what they sold for prior to and after the ban.

There was no reduction in violent crime due to the ban, no reduction in number of multiple victim shootings, no reduction in the number of mass shootings. The ban did absolutely nothing except cost the Democrats control of Congress.

[wtmusic]

59. So you're claiming a law with no teeth had no effect on crime statistics.

Imagine that.

[benEzra]

76. You misunderstand the law. Magazines were NOT banned;

sale (and importation) of pre-9/94 mags was 100% legal, and manufacturers made about a 20-year supply prior to the enactment of the non-ban. Prices rose due to increased buying (the law made it a seller's market) but availability wasn't an issue; my wife legally bought a Glock 19 mag during the "ban" (for around $100, yikes) and I bought several 20- and 30-round Ruger and AK magazines much cheaper, since rifle mag prices weren't affected nearly as much.

[still_one]

19. You sure didn't buy it for hunting. /nt

[benEzra]

77. What does hunting have to do with anything?

The VAST majority of gun owners are nonhunters, and paramecium-sized magazines make little sense outside a hunting context.

[Statistical]

84. I have never hunted a single day in my life.

I purchase firearms for target practice, competitive shooting, and self defense.

The 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. I will however vote to defend the rights of hunters whenever possible.

[SteveM]

163. So? nt

[GSLevel9]

6. I'm sorry but you're wrong.

One could still obtain high-cap mags in AZ even before the AWB faded away. However... they were 3-4x the price of the 10 rounders because legal "grandfathered" ones were more rare.

And it is VERY important to understand...

I or any other competent shooter can empty 3 10 round magazines executing 2 mag changes in maybe 30 seconds with roughly aimed shots.

[wtmusic]

12. No, you're wrong.

The shooter was subdued while loading his second magazine, like you would have been.

And they wouldn't be selling high-cap mags at Sportsman's Warehouse in violation of the law, now would they?

Nice try.

[TheWraith]

24. No, he wasn't. He was subdued while attempting to flee, according to eyewitnesses.

The Virginia Tech shooter had only standard capacity magazines, and reloaded several times. The one to two seconds of a reload isn't enough time to jump someone with a gun.

[wtmusic]

36. I just know you have a link to that "fleeing" bit.

Here's mine.

"Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110,0,6628193.story

[TheWraith]

55. Here you go, from someone who was actually there.

"When the gunman apparently ran out of ammunition he attempted to flee, but a member of Giffords' staff tackled him. Rayle helped hold the gunman down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-to-20 minutes later. The EMS came about 30 minutes later. Rayle said he was "stunned" by how long it took medical help to arrive."

The police later confirmed he DID still have ammunition in the gun.

http://gawker.com/5728501/

[wtmusic]

68. Contradicted by many other sources saying he stayed and attempted to reload.

You claim there were "eyewitnesses" (plural). Other links, please (sorry, but I think your claim is full of shit).

[TheWraith]

72. I provided the eyewitness account of someone who was there.

You can't seem to show me an actual eyewitness account saying he tried to reload, only third-hand media statements which completely conflict.

[RSillsbee]

74. By your own account he did reload

and he was tackled when his gun jammed

[GreenStormCloud]

142. According you you, his gun jammed.

A jam is NOT part of a normal reload. Depending upon the type of jam, clearing one can take from a few seconds up to making a trip to a gunsmith. Reloading a mag should take about one second, less if you practice.

[pokerfan]

27. something doesn't add up

Loughner's held 31 rounds. Reports are that he fired 15 to 20 rounds. If the ban was still in place he would have had to reload which would have given time for him to be stopped.

Twenty is less than thirty-one so why was he changing magazines?

[TheWraith]

42. Because he was captured while attempting to flee, not while reloading.

The police confirmed that he DID still have rounds in the weapon when he was taken down.

[wtmusic]

47. Three times, no link. Maybe if you post it once more without a link, it will be true.

[pokerfan]

119. source?

Yesterday's 'Gawker' or today's ABC?

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

[X_Digger]

53. One report I read..

.. indicated that the spring in the magazine broke (which is one of the common problems with these extended magazines.)

In order to clear it, you'd have to remove the mag, clear the jam, insert a new mag, and rack the slide- quite a bit longer than a simple reload.

[beevul]

60. Yep. Thats thats I read and was thinking as well.

"the spring in the magazine broke (which is one of the common problems with these extended magazines.)"

Exactly my thoughts.

[Statistical]

28. There was no law that prohibited selling "full capacity magazines". None.

The law simply prohibited manufacturing NEW mags. Of course the supply companies had ample time to ramp up production and made tens of millions of full capacity mags prior to the law going into effect.

[GSLevel9]

31. it's not a violation of the law to sell them IF they're pre-ban mags.

The AWB was a joke, a feel good cosmetic piece of legislation to make people feel good.

And some say he was tackled while reloading but another report says there were still rounds in the mag. Which is true?

The reality is... he probably shot off 20-25 rounds and mentally thought he was low so he went to change mags. OR those aftermarket long-stick mags are notoriously unreliable and may have jammed or the release may have "popped" by itself.

Firearm legislation is illogical anyways because criminals will always skirt the laws, hence their categorization as criminals.

[X_Digger]

32. Indications are that the spring in the magazine broke- which caused a jam.

To clear, you would have to remove the magazine, rack the slide to clear loose round(s), insert a new magazine, and rack the slide again.

Quite different than merely dropping the magazine, inserting a new one, and hitting the slide release.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477191684809913367#

regarding your assertion that he wouldn't have been able to buy them at Sportsman's Warehouse..

It was illegal to sell to the general public any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds that was manufactured after the enactment of the ban. As I sit here at my desk, I'm looking at an extended magazine for my 1911 that I purchased in 1998 or 1999- legally, from a big box sporting goods store.

You do your cause no good when you demonstrate insufficient knowledge about the topic at hand.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. I love this. 'No, you're wrong' *spews inaccuracies*

[Kingofalldems]

7. Here they come again

:popcorn:

[Brilliantrocket]

10. So just because someone dies...

that means you get to start taking rights away? This is not a gun issue. Making it out to be a gun issue is simply taking advantage of a tragedy to push your view onto other people. The shooter clearly had a mental health problem. We need to work in that direction rather than having a knee jerk reaction and banning something.

[Codeine]

20. The Right uses tragedy to weaken our Fourth Amendment rights,

while our side wants to weaken our Second Amendment rights. And both sides seem eager to carve the First Amendment into itty-bitty pieces to Make Things Safe.

Fuck me.

[Brilliantrocket]

26. It's a problem with most people, they're too reactive

To eager to give up everything for a little more comfort.( False comfort,that is)Those who give up a little freedom for security deserve neither. Works well in this case.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Exactly. It's disgusting.

Nobody ever wants to take the high road.

[SteveM]

164. And everyone jumps on the Fifth, right out of the chute. nt

[still_one]

29. And the only purpose for semi automatic weapons > 10 rounds is to kill people. /nt

[benEzra]

80. How do you square that with the fact that 30-round rifles are among the least misused of all guns?

Most ~30-round firearms are rifles, and rifles are the least misused of all firearms. You're claiming that the only purpose of the most popular target rifles in the nation is to kill people---even though (1) more people own them than hunt, and (2) all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of murders annually.

Rifle hysteria is just that, hysteria.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

[SteveM]

165. Are you asking?

If a purpose is to kill people (actually, to stop an attack, hence the term "stopping power"), so what?

Where a range allows such, people often use extended magazines in order to see how their shooting holds up over the long-term of bullet capacity, or just because it is fun. Anything wrong with that?

[texshelters]

33. Who needs more than 10 rounds to protect one self from a home invasion

of to kill a deer?

Really, what's the point of a semi-auto with 15-33 rounds other than to kill a group of people?

Could he have done that with a knife?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Brilliantrocket]

41. I would argue yes

If he had a katana ( a really big knife) , I would argue he could have killed a similar number of people. Although, they would have to be standing close to him.

[Statistical]

99. Cops generally land less than one hit in twelve under combat conditions.

So you believe a hoomeowner who may be facing multiple assailants without backup should have less rounds to use in his/her defense than trained police officers with backup have?

Really?

Self Defense is a human right. Full capacity magazines are used by Police because they are effective. Citizens shouldn't be given second class defensive choices because of your fear.

As far as knives many mass murderers used knives, especially in countries where firearms are hard to obtain.

[lawodevolution]

109. "Who needs more than 10 rounds to protect one self from a home invasion"

I enjoy my 75 round AK47 magazine in target practice because I'm able to keep shooting on the target, it is none of your business that I own a 75 round capacity magazine for my AK47, it is none of your business that I own an AK47 or semi auto firearm. Stop trying to pretend you are someone's superior or father figure, you are just some chump who wants to control the lives of other people using methods that are proven to fail such as the gun bans in nigeria, russia and mexico.

[krispos42]

120. Why the fixation on 10?

Aside from the unimportant biological fact that humans have 10 fingers, why is the magic number 10? Why not 12, or 8? What is this based on? Should it be based on the "average" number of rounds fired in legitimate self-defense situation? Is twice the average reasonable?

Or how about the maximum ever fired in a non-law-enforcement, non-criminal self-defense situation? What number is that?

People fire a many rounds as needed when they are in a self-defense situation. If they need two, they fire two, regardless of how many rounds are in the gun.

[SteveM]

167. They gots to have a victory. Maybe they think 10 rounds is political majic. nt

[SteveM]

166. You still out there killing deer?

In a home invasion, I would rather have something more than my 6-round .357 magnum (far more powerful than a 9mm); I would rather have a semi-auto pistol holding 3X as much. Clear enough?

As for deer, what is the relevance? Fewer than 20 percent of gun-owners hunt. I think by now you have seen examples of mass murder by knife, so that is settled.

[Euromutt]

196. Uh, potentially anybody?

I don't know how many rounds any given person might need to hold off one or more home invaders. Do you have any empirical evidence how many rounds is enough? I sincerely doubt it. In the absence of such evidence, there's a lot to be said for allowing oversized magazines, since most nightwear doesn't have pockets that are suited to carrying spare mags, or drawing mags from them.

And yes, it's perfectly possible to kill a group of people using a knife, as has by now been pointed out ad nauseam.

[X_Digger]

11. A reload takes about a second.

Less than a second if you practice- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477191684809913367#

If your statement were true, then there would have been an appreciable difference in the crime stats between '94 and '04 - there wasn't.

[wtmusic]

16. This guy was subdued during his first reload

Whether he practiced or not, it's not unreasonable to assume that three more people would be alive now.

That's an appreciable difference, wouldn't you say, especially if you happened to be related to one of the three? :shrug:

[TheWraith]

30. According to eyewitnesses, he was grabbed when he attempted to flee, not while reloading. nt

[wtmusic]

43. Link, please. nt

[petronius]

63. That link that you yourself posted upthread indicates that you're both wrong:

it appears from that that he succeeded in reloading and was trying to shoot some more. IOW, he wasn't reloading or fleeing when he was subdued...

[wtmusic]

65. He probably didn't completely insert the magazine

because the wounded woman was tugging on his arm. He tried to fire it anyway.

A Glock is a high-quality killing machine, used by policemen around the world. Glocks with magazines properly inserted don't "jam".

[petronius]

71. I thought the sheriff said that the magazine spring failed (nt)

[Statistical]

85. How would you know? Have you ever handled one?

Any firearm can jam. Anyone. I have seen a Glock jam on the range multiple times. The most common reason is limp wristing which results in incomplete recoil cycle. However dud or poor loaded ammo can do the same thing. Also if the mag spring broke/failed then the weapon would most certainly jam and the jam would be unavoidable until the magazine was replaced.

A Glock is a high-quality killing machine, used by policemen around the world. Glocks with magazines properly inserted don't "jam".
I am bookmarking this one. This shows nothing you say aboute firearms can be trusted. It is one of the stupidest things I have heard. Hell even diehard Glock fans wouldn't make a claim this stupid.

Try typing in "Glock Jam" into google. See what pops up.

[wtmusic]

88. Of course it "can" jam.

It's exceedingly rare - that's why it's the choice of police departments aaround the world. Is that also one of the stupidest things you've ever heard?

Personally the stupidest thing I've ever heard is your claim about killer seat belts, and your inability to admit it's just a stupid comparison.

Intractability is not a logical virtue.

[Statistical]

92. I thought you just said they can't jam. So now they can jam. As in his weapon could have jammed.

Something you earlier indicated was impossible.

Seatbelts do result in fatalities they are simply a good idea because Statistically speaking they save more lives then they end. In situation of fire, submerged vehicle, or low speed collisions seats belts are more likely to cause death than no seat belts. By advocating seatbelts nobody is making the claim they never result in fatalities rather that the pros outweigh the cons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. Wow, it took him less than an hour to contradict himself!

So much for 'expertise'...

[SteveM]

170. Yeah, his is typical "bull in the ring" stuff. nt

[beevul]

107. Its not that exceedingly rare...

Its not that exceedingly rare, if the firearm in question is dirty. Or the ammo. Or the mag.

Its not that uncommon for the mag to feedramp relationship to cause jams even in glocks, particularly with aftermarket magazines.

*shrug*

[jazzhound]

108. If "intractability is not a logical virtue" prove it by retracting

your falsification of the '86 Kellermann study:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=334436#334468

[SteveM]

169. I'm glad to see you retracted your "jammin'" statement. That's a good start. nt

[RSillsbee]

124. Glock Fanboys

I am certain that in just a few minutes, a Glock fanboy will come by and post a link to a test where a Glock was put in a blender filled with Drano, sulfuric acid, Coca-Cola, piranha, and 2 pounds of industrial diamonds. A CAT D8 bulldozer was then dropped on it from 1000 feet. The owner picked up the Glock, chambered a 155mm HE round, hit a post-it note at 917 miles, and then proceeded to run 726,761 rounds of Wolf ammo coated with Gorilla Glue with no failures. "

[Statistical]

139. Sounds about right.

Still even the guy posting that wouldn't say a Glock never jams.

[dmallind]

146. do yourself a favor aned google "Glock kaboom"

lots of traditionalist shooters hate the Austrian plastic and this is one reason why...

[SteveM]

168. So, you are saying Glocks don't jam? Really?

[shadowrider]

178. Newsflash: ANY gun using a magazine can jam. Some more than others

But ALL are suseptible.

[YllwFvr]

206. glocks dont jam

sure they do. It can be because of many things. poor ammo, poor magazine (which was very likely in this case) or the gun just breaks. Ive seen a brand new glock break in its first magazine of ammo. It happens. If it didnt happen to even the highest quality guns they wouldnt drive into police how to deal with jams.

[X_Digger]

100. One incident is not indicative of a trend.

As someone recently said, "I call it connecting the dot."

[onehandle]

17. During which the tacklers would have hit the kid and half the people would have died.

But you're here to defend the almighty gun, so carry on.

[X_Digger]

102. Were people standing within 'tackling distance' before his gun jammed?

Indications are that the 'tacklers' approached when his gun jammed (broken magazine spring, according to the sheriff).

But you're here to stomp in some blood puddles, so carry on.

[SteveM]

171. Gotcher culture war on again. I can tell by your losing statement.

[Codeine]

13. Oh good grief.

You could still buy long magazines after the ban because there were still a shitload of them already made. You paid through the nose, but you could still legally purchase them. And even if he didn't have one with just a little practice it takes very, very little time to reload a pistol.

[sunshine69]

14. You realize that the congresswoman used assault weapons

or at least didn't mind a photo op with them.

http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/28/target-practice/gabrielle-giffords.html

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Bad photo-op. She is holding the rifle wrong.

The way she is holding it shows that she is unfamilar with and uncomfortable with rifles.

[still_one]

15. There is only one reason buy assult weapons, it is to kill people. It sure isn't used for hunting.

[Brilliantrocket]

23. It may be so...

Well that and target practice. The problem lies in what type of people you intend to kill. The innocent or criminals? As some states allow criminals to be killed , the problem lies in keeping the guns away from the loonies.

[still_one]

50. There is no requirement that people demonstrate they know how to use weapons properly or safety

Practices for guns

[TheWraith]

45. Actually, "assault weapons" are among the most popular hunting rifles in the country.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about, even though you think you do.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

94. Wrong.

There is only one reason buy assult weapons, it is to kill people. It sure isn't used for hunting.

Wrong.

F-class (long range) benchrest precision competition, 300 to 1200 yards:
http://www.f-classinfo.com/page11/page11.html



Camp Perry style target competition (iron sights only):



Hunting (mostly irrelevant since so few gun owners hunt, but since you mention it):
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx


IPSC/USPSA (the circles I shoot in; AR-15's are popular in IPSC competition in Europe.


Recreational target shooting (by far the #1 use):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77kitty/452412518/

[X_Digger]

103. Only one in five gun owners hunt.

Where does the second amendment mention hunting, again?

[DissedByBush]

116. Depends on the definition

The "It's scary looking" ban that expired a few years ago covered lots of rifles used for hunting.

Take a basic hunting rifle, put a more ergonomic stock on it, ta-da, instant "assault weapon."

Here's an AR-style rifle in one of the most popular hunting calibers, .308:

[SteveM]

172. Correction...

"Assault weapons," a term of art not recognized by the vast majority of armorers, gun-writers and gun dealers, can and are being used for hunting. Remington makes 2 models; one in .223 for varmint hunting, the other for a selection of deer-sized rounds. Other manufacturers are doing so as well. There is no law against re-chambering for hunting rounds, and no law against bullet improvement; even an AK-47 can be loaded for taking deer, and is the equivalent of the old .30-30. These firearms are not oddities, but will, IMO, supplant the old bolt-action, blue-steel & walnut rifles in my lifetime.

BTW, the proper description for the class of weapon you refer to is "semi-auto carbine" of moderate power.

[YllwFvr]

207. im sure the millions who own them

will disagree with you. the same millions who havent shot a person with them

[oneshooter]

210. Actually they have been a very good investment. ...

Since the closing of the full auto registry assault rifles and other full auto weapons have increased in value more than 500%. A very good return on capitol invested.


Or are you talking about semi-auto rifles? In that case a 90% Remington Model 8, built in 1912, has only gone up 400-500% in the last 98 years.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tejas]

18. Yep, no way the first 10rds had any bearing.

AWB specified 10rd maximum mag capacity, so in a land of unicorns the shooter would not have presented a problem.

[kpominville]

22. Thats an important point

And should not be overlooked in the debate.

[Last_Stand]

46. How do you know that that poor child was hit with bullet #4 or bullet #20?

If there was an assault weapon ban in place, perhaps he would have had two fully loaded guns instead of one and we would still have the same amount of carnage.

There's a ton of "if"s involved with this tragedy, but I don't think going after guns is going to accomplish anything.

[pipoman]

121. Oh it might accomplish one thing...

it might accomplish Democratic political losses for years to come..it wouldn't, however, accomplish less homicide, I would agree with that.

[SteveM]

173. Agreed. One of the many problems with the so-called...

"assault weapons ban" was that the definition was grossly inconsistent, and in the eye of the controller/prohibitionist, could include ANY gun. Of course, that was the intent of the AWB to begin with. I believe it was Charles Krauthammer (a ring-wing ideologue at the Washington Post) who said that the AWB wasn't about lowering the crime rate, but about desensitizing the public to a ban of this type of gun in order to move toward complete prohibition of all firearms. I guess the Post liked that part of his ideology.

[texshelters]

48. The Glock 9 used in this shooting normally has a 15 round clip and

it can be easily replace with a clip that holds 25 and 33 rounds.

And why do we sell these weapons? Aren't they for killing? Or was Jared worried the Mexican drug mafia might send an army after him.

Get real. These guns (not all guns, so STFU before you over react) should be banned.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Statistical]

52. Cops use full capacity mags because it increases survival rates when engaging multiple suspects.

Why should homeowners have less protection than Police due when Police routinely have backup?

[wtmusic]

54. This particular full capacity mag didn't increase survival rates, did it? nt

[Statistical]

56. Seatbelts don't always save lives either.

We should ban seatbelts and force cops to disarm because neither device is effective 100% of the time.

[wtmusic]

61. Seatbelts don't kill, either.

That analogy really sucked.

[bossy22]

69. actually they can

in certain instances (like low speed accidents) a seat belt can cause considerable internal injuries. This is not to say you shouldnt wear your seatbelt and the risks to not definetly outweight the benefits of not wearing one but that there is still a chance that it could cause more harm than good.

[texshelters]

98. So, are you going to bring a seat belt to the next gun fight, or use it

to protect yourself at home.

If this sound ridiculous, I am just trying to match your comment.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Statistical]

112. No I will use a gun even though I know it isn't 100% effective.

I would rather have a highly effective tool rather than no tool to aid in self defense.

Likewise cops shouldn't be disarmed because guns don't have a 100% protection rate.
Similarly it makes sense to still wear seatbelt even though it won't protect you in 100% of crashes and depending on the circumstances possibly even cause your death.

It is all about stacking the odds in your favor. No matter the odds the dice can still come up snake eyes.

[SteveM]

176. "Sounds ridiculous"? No need to match. You do that on auto-induced pilot. nt

[dmallind]

147. yes they do. My uncle for one.

Would likely have survived if ejedcted from his car instead of being trapped in it and crushed by big steel pipes that flattened his car ihto less thsn 2' high.

[SteveM]

175. Sooo, the killer was a cop? Do you have a link? nt

[bossy22]

67. what are "those" guns

the Glock 19 is in a catagory of guns that is happens to be the most popular among police and for civilians alike for target shooting and defense. The essential design hasnt really changed since it started to become popular over 100 years ago.

the Glock 19 is designed for reliability and ease of use- two things that are essential for a self-defense weapon.

Its silly to try to draw a distinction between guns that are "killing machines" and those used for self defense and sporting- because there is no distinction- all guns are capable of being used to kill people. We say we want to ban "sniper rifles" but hunting rifles are okay. But a hunting rifle that can take a deer down at long range can also take a human down at long range with ease. We say that people shouldnt own police weapons but guns for self defense are okay without realizing that these are the same guns- that police side-arms are chosen with the principle in mind that these are self defense weapons.

[texshelters]

89. Really, no distinction? You sounded like you know about guns, but

apparently you don't know the difference between 10 and 15 and 33 or semi-automatic versus manual. (I know you do, I am just mocking your simplistic logic here that doesn't really address my comment).

So cops use them. Do they get to use the extended clips?

Are the Glocks they use automatics or semi?

I know that some states have bans on larger clips. Arizona doesn't ban much at all.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[benEzra]

96. You sounded like you're wanting a ban on all double-stack 9mm pistols...

or did you mean all handguns? Or all semiautos? Or all guns with post-1860's magazine capacities?

[bossy22]

115. no there is a distinction

but the distinction is based on category not on "killing power". Yeah, a hunting rifle and a semi-auto pistol are not the same- thats a given. what i was merely stating was that there is no way to distinguish between "sporting" firearms and "defensive" firearms in the realm of lethality. Sure, a bolt action hunting rifle can't spray a crowd with bullets- but a pistol isnt accurate over 25 yards while a hunting rifle is accurate even after 250 yards.

and what is considered an extended clip? an extended clip for a glock 19 is 17+ rounds, but an extended clip for a 1911 is 8+ rounds in most cases. Most cops who carry the glock 19 use the standard 15 round magazine that sits flat with the butt of the gun- so do most civilians who carry such firearm for self protection.

No law enforcement agency in the U.S. uses the glock 18 (the automatic glock)- nor have i ever heard of anyone carrying a glock 18 for CCW. They arent readily available and require a federal license to posess.

[oneshooter]

211. There are only 2 Glock 18 in the country. n/t

[RSillsbee]

129. You have the balls to ask

Are the Glocks they use automatics or semi?

Then question our knowledge of guns?

[jazzhound]

134. +1

Amazing, isn't it?

[dmallind]

149. Well techniclly Glock DOES offer an auto pistol. The 33 IIRC

Not to the US market though.

[SteveM]

177. Oh, maybe he was just be sarcastic. Again. And again. And...

[YllwFvr]

208. all small glocks

can use larger magazines. A glock 30 (subcompact, very small) will accept full sized mags from the full sized gun. so it comes with a 10 round mag. but it can use 13 rounders, or 29 round mags.

Just like a glock 26 (subcompact 9mm) comes with 10 or 12 round mags. It will also take 15 and 17 round mags, which come factory in larger guns. so they are not "high capacity". It will take 33 round mags too. Larger guns cannot accept smaller mags, smaller ones CAN go bigger.

Do you know the difference between semi autos and manual? Whats a manual gun?

most states "dont ban much at all"

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[texshelters]

86. Yes, I meant the Glock 19

Missed the 1 I guess.

Tragic none-the-less, what every you call the gun.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. If he'd used several guns with 10 round capacity (AKA "New York Reload"), that would be okay?

"Darn it, I was going to go kill lots of people at that rally- but I'd have to carry more than one gun. Oh well..."


Once again, "common-sense" gun control turns out to be not all that sensible.

[SteveM]

174. If you don't like the extended magazines (clips?), explain why you want to ban them.

[Abq_Sarah]

186. It was a Glock 19

It's one of the most popular guns sold in the USA.

There's no reason for this pistol to be banned. You're more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a firearm.

Perhaps all cars should be banned?

[atreides1]

49. Not so much..but it's a nice dream.

"So, the gun laws are so weak that someone who had been deemed unworthy for the military, kicked out of college and requires mental testing in order to return, and has a drug conviction..."



The U.S. Army confirmed that Loughner had been rejected as "unqualified" from the service in 2008 for failing a drug screening.

Coming up positive on a drug test does not disqualify a person from purchasing a gun

From February to September 2010, Loughner had five contacts with Pima Community College police for classroom and library disruptions. On September 29, 2010, college police discovered a Loughner-filmed YouTube video in which he claimed that the college was illegal according to the United States Constitution. The college told Loughner that if he wanted to come back to school, he needed to resolve his Code of Conduct violations and obtain a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, that his presence did not constitute a danger to himself or others. Instead he withdrew from Pima.

While PCC may have required him to get a mental health clearance to return, it wasn't mandatory...once again does not disqualify a person from purchasing a gun.

According to court records, Loughner had two previous offenses, one of which was for drug possession. In October 2007, Loughner was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia, which was dismissed after he completed a diversion program, according to online records. A year later he was charged with an unknown "local charge" in Marana near Tucson. That charge was also dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009, the Daily Star reported.

A citation is not the same as a conviction, and it was dismissed after he completed a diversion program. The other charge was also dismissed, once again after he completed a diversion program. Once charges are dismissed. it's as if nothing happened. No conviction, followed court ordered diversion program, once again under Arizona law, not a disqualification from purchasing a gun

As for the magazine..if he was already comitted to doing this...don't you think he could have purchased extended magazines from some not so legal sources?

[one-eyed fat man]

132. Form 4473, Question 11(e)

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

As you point out, "The U.S. Army confirmed that Loughner had been rejected as "unqualified" from the service in 2008 for failing a drug screening." and that had had been busted once on a drug charge, an argument could be made that he also perjured himself when buying the gun. His drug use appears to be anything BUT lawful.

I'd go so far as to argue anyone showing up for pre-employment screening, knowing they are going to be tested, that still 'pisses hot' is too stupid to hire doing anything!

Anyway, back to reading all the punditry from those with the "crystal clear clairvoyance of hindsight" about all the clues this latest loser whack job left on his quest for notoriety that "someone" should have stopped him long before this...

[Euromutt]

150. That question is in the present tense, mind you

The fact that someone failed a drug test in 2008 (and note that poppyseed bagels can cause you to falsely test "positive" for heroin; the tests are by no means 100% reliable) doesn't mean he was "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" a controlled substance in 2010. Not to mention that it's complete bullshit that the form 4473 singles out marijuana, but gives a pass to anyone who gets belligerent under the influence of alcohol, as if a stoner owning a firearm is a bigger risk to public safety than a habitual drunk.

[one-eyed fat man]

155. Valid points, however....

as relates to the OP's crystal clear hindsight:

"So, the gun laws are so weak that someone who had been deemed unworthy for the military, kicked out of college and requires mental testing in order to return, and has a drug conviction can walk in and buy a semi-automatic weapon with a magazine that carries 31 rounds of ammunition."

What we really have is a low-grade loser who was under the radar for a long time. As more and more digging is done into his past, there will be more and more questioning about how did he remain undetected for so long? Until he showed up at the parking lot, nothing he had done rose to the level where those closest to him felt it necessary to do anything.

It's not complicated, no need for any mystical psychobabble, he was, and is still, a failure. He couldn't join the Army in the middle of a war. So he wanted to "go out in a blaze of glory."

Every wacko nut job sees himself on some kind of noble mission. Every time some wacko does something so notorious, there is a peanut gallery pointing at all the things in his past that supposedly predicted the very thing the wacko did. And just as predictably, they ask why wasn't he detected and stopped sooner, when it is crystal clear to them from their vantage point of hindsight the wacko was wacko all along.

They are arguing that the law failed because his mental state wasn't severe enough to lock him up before he bought a gun. They see the law as a failure because his apparently low-level drug use didn't stop him. They don't see the irony of a loser stupid enough to fail a drug test he KNEW he was going to undergo, still being smart enough not to admit to being a drug user on the 4473.

[Euromutt]

195. Part of the problem is that mental health care has progressed, while the law hasn't

In the past twenty-odd years, it's become very, very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution. There were good reasons for deinstitutionalization in mental health care, but part of its effect is that people who in 1968 (the year the Gun Control Act was signed into law) would have been disqualified from possessing firearms on the grounds of having been involuntarily committed are in this day and age under no such restriction because involuntary commitment has become so rare. I recommend Dr. Harriet Hall's post on the topic of mental health care in this regard: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=410

I think it's fair to say that, where mental patients are concerned, the GCA is long overdue for an update. It does deserve notice that a lot of people who would have been involuntarily committed in 1968 can be reasonably well adjusted members of society today, provided they stay on their meds, but part of the issue is that there's not really a mechanism in place to keep them on the meds they need.

Increasing funding for mental health care (as many of our fellow Gungeoneers have advocated) would be a good start, but what we really need is for mental health care personnel to have the means to enforce compliance with treatment. As someone who is technically a mental health patient (severe depressive disorder), but who sought treatment of his own accord, and is sticking to it, I admit I don't know what kind of wording the law should have to forcibly treat the unwilling while not hampering the compliant. I guess that's something we're going to have to thrash out.

[one-eyed fat man]

197. I agree, mostly.

Perhaps those who are unwilling need the commitment process. There has to be something more to restrict someone from their rights than one doctor's opinion. The fact that the military mandates PTSD counseling for all soldiers returning from a deployment has already caused problems for soldiers. There are those in Congress who already want all returning veterans placed in that category.

It is even more ludicrous in that the mandatory counseling does not differentiate between assignments. Someone who spent their entire tour as a cook in an underwater messkit repair battalion on a major base, whose only exposure to combat was watching reruns of the old TV series on AFN, is required the same counseling as an infantryman, a tank crewman, or an airborne ranger. Yes, being a pay clerk faced with a trooper whose allotments are screwed up is stressful, it is nothing like the stress of a combat engineer trying to neutralize an IED under fire.

Somehow the system has to evolve so that your neighbor can't simply call and say, "The guy next door is crazy." and get you into the database, yet capture as many of those who are truly dangerous to others. And I would demand that the process afford the person whose mental competency is being called into question due process and a formal adjudication. It should require a judge's signature, not just the rubber stamp of some bureaucratic drone in the basement of some obscure agency.

We should be tired enough of "secret watch lists." They have no place in a free society and ANYONE who argues for them does not deserve to live in a free society!

[petronius]

58. On the other hand, if he couldn't have gotten the big magazine maybe he would

have brought two or even three guns. Then, maybe he wouldn't have had that jamming problem at the end and even more people would be dead.

You're making a pointless and unsupported assumption (especially since the extended magazine was legally available all through the AWB)...

[GSLevel9]

62. or maybe he would have brought a molotov cocktail? nt

[petronius]

66. Yep. Or driven a big SUV through the crowd and then fired one shot apiece

from a giant box of single-shot rifles. Or, gotten a pilots license and flown overhead dropping poisonous snakes before crashing the aircraft into Rep. Giffords. Or...

There are all kinds of assumptions we can make to support whatever claim we want. This thread has lots of fun popcorn potential (obvious, by now) but there's no validity to the 'AWB would have saved lives' conclusion...

[benEzra]

73. 30-round magazines were JUST as legal and available then as now, they just cost more.

And cost doesn't particularly matter to someone on a suicide mission. Not that using 2 15's instead of one unwieldy 30 would usually make much difference.

FWIW, it was primarily handgun magazine prices that were significantly affected by the 1994 non-ban; AK magazines in 2002-2003 were $9.99/ea for 30-round and $5.99/ea for 20-round, which is cheaper than they are now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. So he would've had to swap mags... which takes all of 2 seconds.

The AWB was a crock of shit and didn't make anything safer. Plenty of people had >10 round magazines and the tens of MILLIONS of magazines already in circulation were still allowed to remain in circulation. The only thin the AWB accomplished was allowing republicans to stomp democrats.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

83. Bullshit....nt

[oneshooter]

110. Concise and to the point! Thank you sir. n/t

[old mark]

138. "Just because there is pepper in the soup doesn't mean there's pepper in the cook."

.
.
.
.
.
I don't know what that means, either...


mark

[Endangered Specie]

114. Why is it people think that if guns were banned, the crazies wouldn't find some other

way to kill lots of people fast?

[guitar man]

184. Exactly

He could have bought a '91 Crown Vic at a police surplus auction, maybe even cheaper than the Glock, mowed through the crowd and possibly have killed more people that way depending in how densely packed they were. And stood a better chance of escaping. Guns, airliners, Ryder trucks filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel. There are a whole lot of ways to kill people if somebody really wants to.

[applegrove]

117. +100

[spin]

131. All the assault weapons ban did was to increase the sale of these weapons and ...

hi-cap magazines.

Before the ban, I didn't know any shooter who had an "assault rifle". During the ban everyone just had to have one and at least three or four hi-cap magazines.

The Assault Weapons Ban was one of the most stupid and useless pieces of legislation passed in my life time. It was the epitome of "feel good" legislation.

[krispos42]

118. Gays are deemed unworthy for the military.

Just ask John McCain. For quite a few years, women were deem unworthy for the military as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Good to see you are 'up' on the history of this subject. He would have paid 60 bucks and done it any

way. You don't know anything about the law you are pining for.

Also, way to misrepresent the facts there.

[PavePusher]

179. UnRecced for prideful ignorance.

Seriously, how many times do I have to fucking do this today?

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

190. FWIW: The Columbine school shooter used hi-cap mags during the so called Assault Weapons Ban

It is wishful thinking that those who are determined wouldn't spend the extra money to buy the magazines that were made before any manufacturing ban.

[Remmah2]

198. Does anyone know if he had a barrel shroud on his weapon? nt

nt

[X_Digger]

199. That thing that goes up? I think not.. n/t

[ileus]

201. AWB banned nothing for the most part....

Everything on the list was still around you just had to have mags and firearms imported or made before the date the AWB went into effect. companies were mass producing the magazines and selling them during the ban....you just needed the money since the started bringing a premium price. "Assult" type firearms did away with bayonets and other evil options to be made legal.

[Kennah]

203. Colin Ferguson ...

... reloaded for a third time before anyone tackled him. 10 round mags and reloading accomplishes nothing.